1. 00:10:896 (3,5) - let's start with the very beginning of the map, where you placed two objects that aren't supported by the music. it's not that they should not be clickable objects, nor should be less emphasized... they don't even appear in the music.
   then you also have this very questionable decision with 00:11:338 (6) - where both beats are, in fact, very audible and they certainly need more attention than the rest of the circles in this section.
   the real problem of this first section, anyway, is that you are following the guitar in the background, not random sounds in the music. after having taken a look at the hard difficulty, i noticed how you extended the slider 00:10:279 (2) - to the white tick, and that you didn't end it on the red tick. this should be applied here as well, since that's what you did that with 00:06:044 (1,2,1) - as well: you are not shortening the end to make the tails clickable, you are extending the whole slider until the sound. this is completely okay, but it breaks with your consistency on 00:10:279 (2,3,4) -
   and also get rid of 00:11:161 (5) - please
   and consider making 00:11:338 (6) - two circles instead. this is optional, anyway. although it would be a great adittion to the map
   
2. 00:11:691 (1) - now, here is when things start getting a little bit more... complicated. basically because inconsistencies start appearing... a l o t. let's compare this slider to 00:14:514 (1,2,3) - .
   the problem with this, is that it's the exact same sound represented in 2 different ways. the second one is definitely the more appropriate, but let me explain you why: once again, the instrument you should be following is the guitar which sounds 00:11:867 - , but yeah there is nothing mapped in the song
   
3. 00:17:161 (5,6) - these shouldn't be mapped. or, if anything, only (5). the problem with these is that 00:14:338 - here you decided to opt for placing a break; but later on you decided to overmap triplets... which is very inconsistent
   
4. 00:19:808 (4,5) - these should be replaced with a slider, you also did that on 00:12:749 (4) - and 00:15:573 (5) -
   
5. 00:25:014 - this beat is very, very important. make a triplet instead
   same applies to 00:30:661 - and the rest because they are the exact same thing
   
6. 00:25:632 - i am unsure to why there is a break here, but there is no other break in 00:28:455 - 00:32:338 - etc. these give the player of a sense of "is he following vocals, drums, guitar, piano? i'm not quite following this".

1. until 00:48:926 (3,4,5,6,7) - (and 01:00:220 (3,4,5,6,7) - too) simply because these 2 ignore the vocals completely, which you have been following throughout the rest of the map. you would usually expect these to be the same as 00:51:044 (7,8,1) - or 00:56:691 (6,7,1) - or 01:02:338 (7,8,1) - , well you get it. there is no need to map the (6)s. this is something personal though, you can ignore this suggestion if you can. both work, but one is simply better than the other one
   
2. 00:54:220 - pretty strong sound here getting ignored. in fact i'm not sure why is 00:54:044 (1) - extended, becuase you are not doing that anywhere else on the map, felt pretty random for the most part
   
3. 00:55:455 (1,2) - during 00:54:749 - this section, you change to complete vocal mapping (which is completely fine and i'm glad you did that), but you interpretate one vocal sound with two different objects... which is completely different from every other object during this section
   
4. 00:57:661 - you ignore this beat, that's sad. could eprfectly be mapped to be fair
   
5. 01:17:161 (4) - tail is more important than the head in terms of rhythm, but this object shows otherwise. a simple 01:16:985 (3,4) - ctrl+g would fix this issue ezpz. yes, same goes to 01:19:985 (4) -
   
6. 01:20:867 (1,2,3) - these are not 1/4. pretty sure these are either 1/6 or 1/8, but there is no real reason to map 1/4s, not even for simplification

1. 00:22:985 - vs 00:34:279 - vs 00:48:396 - three different sections entirely, but these 3 contain the exact same slider velocity
   i'm fine with the first one being 1.00x, it matches, it fits the song!
   the second one should definitely be slower, though. 00:34:279 - here is when the song starts building up, so its transition should be more naturla as well. you can go back to 1.00x again in 00:39:926 - because the music has already reached its peak before the kiai section
   as for the third, 00:48:396 - 1.10x would be very nice, especially so it doesn't feel like the whole rest of the map
   
2. 00:56:867 - sections like this felt really good. you seriously did a great job here; but then you break with your consistency in 01:06:573 - which makes it a bit sad. try making them consistent, they are emphasized in the exact same way

1. 00:11:691 - during this whole section spacing is supposed to be, overall, small. it's a calm section, so it should be felt as such; but it actually doesn't feel as such:
   00:12:220 (2,3,4) - spacing here is completely random, there is absolutely no need to space these farther. a pattern being spaced as-is makes 00:12:749 (4,1) - look very underemphasized, and that's something you want to avoid since (1) is very audible and emphasized in the background music!!!
   00:14:514 (1,2,3,4,5) - this pattern is more about overall structure, and not about spacing. but if you had to explain why 00:15:396 (4,5) - were different spaced from the previous notes, you probably wouldn't be able to do that
   00:16:632 (3,4,5,6,1) - again, something somewhat similar to what i mentioned at the vey beginning. (3,4) share the same distance as (4,5), that leaves 00:17:338 (1) - with no kind of special feeling at all because they are equally spaced
   00:18:044 (3,4) - i would say these were unintentionally misplaced and that you didn't intend to do this pattern
   so that's basically it for the first section. you probably notice that there a lot of things i mentioned during these 4 points that repeat a lot during said section. that's because i omitted it for the sake of not having to explain the same issue over and over and over again
   
2. 00:32:338 (5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - pattern overall feels very random, let's say it's awkward. song here gets a little more quiet but that's not being represented into the map. on a side note, (1) and (5) should get more protagonism, more emphasis; as of right now, it feels like everything is emphasized the same way (but as i said, this isn't the case, yada yada!) so you need to get that fixed
   get more attention into (4,5) and decrease the rest, especially for (5,6,7) so when the song starts building up again in 00:33:749 - it feels more special
   
3. 00:47:161 (1,2,3) - these felt very underemphasized for no reason. after such a jumpy section, these felt like 3 very quiet piano hits when they are quite the opposite
   
4. 00:49:278 (7,8,9) - you already get by now that (8) should be the one being emphasized and not (9). you executed this idea properly in 01:00:572 (7,8,9) - so try doing that instead

1. 00:52:632 (1,2,3,4) - spacing here is pretty consistent (i'm aware that (1,2) is not consistent spacing, but wait). the problem is that, that's only the visual section of the map. the song, on the other hand, makes something completely different
   you know, whenever you want to do these kind of patterns, you gotta make sure that, in fact, the sounds you are mapping (or whatever you are following) are consistent, otherwise it doesn't make sense
   
2. 01:03:926 (1,2,3,4) - this has the same mistake as explained before, all three problems combined
   
3. 01:05:691 (2,3,4) - again, somewhat similar. (3) is supposed to be taken as a very soft hit, but it looks like it's getting a lot more of attention. quiet beats shouldn't get more importance than the very, really loud sounds!!

1. 00:22:896 (6,1) - xexxar already mentioned these, so i will leave that for now
2. 00:23:691 (4,5) - looks like 1/4 instead of 1/2
3. 01:09:749 (2,1) - looks like a 1/2 pattern instead of 1/1, this is thanks to our lovely visual effects people are used to

1. 00:32:161 (4,5,1,2) - even if you are going to change this (you will, right?) this kind of movement is pretty harsh and it shouldn't be used because it feels forced compared to the rest of the map
   
2. 00:58:985 (1,2,3,4) - this is less about flow and more about visuals, but it... kidna is related. movement here felt quite awkward, especially in 00:59:161 (2,3,4) - . idk, personally it seems like you could have done something much better than that
   but that's just me

Yuii- wrote:

rhythm

1. 00:10:896 (3,5) - let's start with the very beginning of the map, where you placed two objects that aren't supported by the music. it's not that they should not be clickable objects, nor should be less emphasized... they don't even appear in the music.
   then you also have this very questionable decision with 00:11:338 (6) - where both beats are, in fact, very audible and they certainly need more attention than the rest of the circles in this section. nothing much to explain, change a better headphone to hear the hit-hat beats thank you
   the real problem of this first section, anyway, is that you are following the guitar in the background, not random sounds in the music. after having taken a look at the hard difficulty, i noticed how you extended the slider 00:10:279 (2) - to the white tick, and that you didn't end it on the red tick. this should be applied here as well, since that's what you did that with 00:06:044 (1,2,1) - as well: you are not shortening the end to make the tails clickable, you are extending the whole slider until the sound. this is completely okay, but it breaks with your consistency on 00:10:279 (2,3,4) -
   and also get rid of 00:11:161 (5) - please
   and consider making 00:11:338 (6) - two circles instead. this is optional, anyway. although it would be a great adittion to the map using the slider is a way to make the map not too hard at he slow beginning while still covers the map-worthy beats, also, it's because there's a hit-hat beat at 00:11:338 - but not one at 00:11:514 - , it's the way to make rhythm consistent on a track
   
2. 00:11:691 (1) - now, here is when things start getting a little bit more... complicated. basically because inconsistencies start appearing... a l o t. let's compare this slider to 00:14:514 (1,2,3) - .
   the problem with this, is that it's the exact same sound represented in 2 different ways. the second one is definitely the more appropriate, but let me explain you why: once again, the instrument you should be following is the guitar which sounds 00:11:867 - , but yeah there is nothing mapped in the song not to mention if the rhythm really hurts the map, there's never a instrument which you SHOULD be following, people can map to vocal, to guitar, to whatever exists in the music and can make it good in their way
   
3. 00:17:161 (5,6) - these shouldn't be mapped. or, if anything, only (5). the problem with these is that 00:14:338 - here you decided to opt for placing a break; but later on you decided to overmap triplets... which is very inconsistent ok point, worth reconsidering
   
4. 00:19:808 (4,5) - these should be replaced with a slider, you also did that on 00:12:749 (4) - and 00:15:573 (5) - could you please find the right referrence when you try to talk about consistency? the mapper was obviously making 00:18:749 (1,2,3,4,5) - consistent with 00:17:338 (1,2,3,4,5) - and it's well done.
   
5. 00:25:014 - this beat is very, very important. make a triplet instead
   same applies to 00:30:661 - and the rest because they are the exact same thing I'm not against using triple but it doesn't mean that 3 circles are ALWAYS better than 1/4 slider. they express things differently, and have their advantages and disadvantages, the mapper can decide what to use to present the feeling of the music. and in this part of the map, the 1/4 slider usage is pretty consistent. you like consistency right?
   
6. 00:25:632 - i am unsure to why there is a break here, but there is no other break in 00:28:455 - 00:32:338 - etc. these give the player of a sense of "is he following vocals, drums, guitar, piano? i'm not quite following this". would you please check p/5993975

slider velocity

1. 00:22:985 - vs 00:34:279 - vs 00:48:396 - three different sections entirely, but these 3 contain the exact same slider velocity
   i'm fine with the first one being 1.00x, it matches, it fits the song!
   the second one should definitely be slower, though. 00:34:279 - here is when the song starts building up, so its transition should be more naturla as well. you can go back to 1.00x again in 00:39:926 - because the music has already reached its peak before the kiai section
   as for the third, 00:48:396 - 1.10x would be very nice, especially so it doesn't feel like the whole rest of the map I'm not really against using sv changes to present the difference of the pace of the song between parts, but please know that sv change is never the only way to express that. there are many many mappers who don't really like doing such small sv change like 0.9x 1.0x 1.1x or so can still make players feel the changing pace of the map properly by arranging the spacing, the flow and the rhythm, everything. one should never be forced to do it only by sv changing
   
2. 00:56:867 - sections like this felt really good. you seriously did a great job here; but then you break with your consistency in 01:06:573 - which makes it a bit sad. try making them consistent, they are emphasized in the exact same way ok point

spacing

1. 00:11:691 - during this whole section spacing is supposed to be, overall, small. it's a calm section, so it should be felt as such; but it actually doesn't feel as such:
   00:12:220 (2,3,4) - spacing here is completely random, there is absolutely no need to space these farther. a pattern being spaced as-is makes 00:12:749 (4,1) - look very underemphasized, and that's something you want to avoid since (1) is very audible and emphasized in the background music!!!
   00:14:514 (1,2,3,4,5) - this pattern is more about overall structure, and not about spacing. but if you had to explain why 00:15:396 (4,5) - were different spaced from the previous notes, you probably wouldn't be able to do that
   00:16:632 (3,4,5,6,1) - again, something somewhat similar to what i mentioned at the vey beginning. (3,4) share the same distance as (4,5), that leaves 00:17:338 (1) - with no kind of special feeling at all because they are equally spaced
   00:18:044 (3,4) - i would say these were unintentionally misplaced and that you didn't intend to do this pattern
   so that's basically it for the first section. you probably notice that there a lot of things i mentioned during these 4 points that repeat a lot during said section. that's because i omitted it for the sake of not having to explain the same issue over and over and over again
   
2. 00:32:338 (5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - pattern overall feels very random, let's say it's awkward. song here gets a little more quiet but that's not being represented into the map. on a side note, (1) and (5) should get more protagonism, more emphasis; as of right now, it feels like everything is emphasized the same way (but as i said, this isn't the case, yada yada!) so you need to get that fixed
   get more attention into (4,5) and decrease the rest, especially for (5,6,7) so when the song starts building up again in 00:33:749 - it feels more special
   
3. 00:47:161 (1,2,3) - these felt very underemphasized for no reason. after such a jumpy section, these felt like 3 very quiet piano hits when they are quite the opposite there are always two different ways emphasing heavy beats, one by jumping while the other by stacking still. for this point, the stacking (maybe you're trying to say that the mapper didn't really STACK them but it's pretty much the same right?) feels quite good imo considering the three guitar notes there are with the same pitch, same sound = stack -> pretty okay for me
   
4. 00:49:278 (7,8,9) - you already get by now that (8) should be the one being emphasized and not (9). you executed this idea properly in 01:00:572 (7,8,9) - so try doing that instead

unfortunately, patterns like the one i have mentioned happened throughout the whole map but in a whole different level... the map is built around inconsistent spacing, with no clear idea of what are you trying to emphasize, which is seriously sad

to mention quite a few examples of what i just said, let me go through some patterns:

1. 00:52:632 (1,2,3,4) - spacing here is pretty consistent (i'm aware that (1,2) is not consistent spacing, but wait). the problem is that, that's only the visual section of the map. the song, on the other hand, makes something completely different
   you know, whenever you want to do these kind of patterns, you gotta make sure that, in fact, the sounds you are mapping (or whatever you are following) are consistent, otherwise it doesn't make sense
   
2. 01:03:926 (1,2,3,4) - this has the same mistake as explained before, all three problems combined
   
3. 01:05:691 (2,3,4) - again, somewhat similar. (3) is supposed to be taken as a very soft hit, but it looks like it's getting a lot more of attention. quiet beats shouldn't get more importance than the very, really loud sounds!!

here comes the part where visuals start getting involved into your mapping as well, decisions where you start questioning yourself whether or not you are hitting a 1/4 or a 1/2 pattern. not even that, you question the mapper if those decisions were intentionally made:

1. 00:22:896 (6,1) - xexxar already mentioned these, so i will leave that for now
2. 00:23:691 (4,5) - looks like 1/4 instead of 1/2
3. 01:09:749 (2,1) - looks like a 1/2 pattern instead of 1/1, this is thanks to our lovely visual effects people are used to

I don't have too much to say about this part. it's just that not all the mappers/players really CARES about if the spacing is exactly consistent because the way more important is that if the map plays good. when I think it plays good, it doesn't really matter if spacing between notes are 1.7x or 1.8x or 2.0x, that really don't matter much at points like 00:14:867 (2,3,4,5) - . there're way too many great mappers who hardly ever look at the upright corner of the editor I think I don't need to make such exapmles here.

flow

1. 00:32:161 (4,5,1,2) - even if you are going to change this (you will, right?) this kind of movement is pretty harsh and it shouldn't be used because it feels forced compared to the rest of the map no I don't think there's ever a kind of flow which SHOULD be avoided in all time. every kind of flow has its different features and can express different kind of feelings of the song and map. some "unflowy" elements in particular points are great emphasis for heavy beats, and I think these notes work pretty nice here for emphasizing the strong drumbeats
   
2. 00:58:985 (1,2,3,4) - this is less about flow and more about visuals, but it... kidna is related. movement here felt quite awkward, especially in 00:59:161 (2,3,4) - . idk, personally it seems like you could have done something much better than that I should say that this is a really interesting point in this map. I thought the quite similar to what you've written about when I see this pattern the first time, but after some testplays on this map I really like it now, it creates a unimagined smooth curve flow with all straight sliders, pretty interesting I'd say. what my trail is like when playing this pattern
   but that's just me

as for visuals, they overall need more work. 00:11:691 (1) - this is quite an awkward shape, to be honest. but that's it


i think you should really put more effort into wondering why you should make the patterns you make, how they'd fit where they are in the music and how enjoyable they'd be for their designated player. the map is just, so much in need of polishing, like i feel you'd need more than this mod to make it reach to its maximum potential I think you should really put more effort into wondering why the mappers make the patterns when modding maps, please never regard a map or any content in a map as bad or unpolished only because the mapper didn't do it in the way that you do and you don't like it. a good modder never force their own ideas to the mapper but instead they try to grab what the mapper is trying to do first, and then give good suggestions to add more satisfying features to it based on what the maps already have. I thought everyone already knows this though, I have to speak it out seeing what you've written above.

Xexxar wrote:

Insane diff: Why did you change the spacing here on this note randomly? 00:22:985 (1) - is this a mistake? was about to emphasis it but fixed >_>
00:34:190 (6,1) - you also randomly lower spacing here on the stream, why not be consistent? rly I didn't see it

Yuii- wrote:

i like to meme from time to time, this isn't a meme though

it is that time of the year already where i start to dislike maps again
sorry that you have to see me like this

modding the insane difficulty, just for clarification

i want to start off saying your ideas are okayish. you have them. you know what you want to do, and how to execute them... but you execute them wrong, in a very poor way, which comes to me questioning some of your decisions and/or inconsistencies throughout the difficulty.
some times these ideas are greatly done, others it just seems nonsensical

also, this is a mod about every single possible aspect that exists in mapping nowaday. it's not that everything is worth mentioning, but there are indeed some minor issues in which you should improve a little bit more before pushing a map forward

let me prove it to you that Im not wrong (at some point) and it would be better if leaving it like itself. I am not admitting that I always understand my maps but I know which is really make senses. I have put a lot of hard work into this set and I'm prepare to go through dq again if needed

rhythm

1. 00:10:896 (3,5) - let's start with the very beginning of the map, where you placed two objects that aren't supported by the music. it's not that they should not be clickable objects, nor should be less emphasized... they don't even appear in the music.
   then you also have this very questionable decision with 00:11:338 (6) - where both beats are, in fact, very audible and they certainly need more attention than the rest of the circles in this section.
   the real problem of this first section, anyway, is that you are following the guitar in the background, not random sounds in the music. after having taken a look at the hard difficulty, i noticed how you extended the slider 00:10:279 (2) - to the white tick, and that you didn't end it on the red tick. this should be applied here as well, since that's what you did that with 00:06:044 (1,2,1) - as well: you are not shortening the end to make the tails clickable, you are extending the whole slider until the sound. this is completely okay, but it breaks with your consistency on 00:10:279 (2,3,4) -
   and also get rid of 00:11:161 (5) - please
   and consider making 00:11:338 (6) - two circles instead. this is optional, anyway. although it would be a great adittion to the map
   
2. 00:11:691 (1) - now, here is when things start getting a little bit more... complicated. basically because inconsistencies start appearing... a l o t. let's compare this slider to 00:14:514 (1,2,3) - .
   the problem with this, is that it's the exact same sound represented in 2 different ways. the second one is definitely the more appropriate, but let me explain you why: once again, the instrument you should be following is the guitar which sounds 00:11:867 - , but yeah there is nothing mapped in the song Considered a lot and my answer may be a no. I can't deny that it's not an important sound, but I just don't like to start a calm part with 1/2 slider (or reverse, click). If I did so, players would be forced to hear many 1/2 beats and it doesn't really make senses.
   
3. 00:17:161 (5,6) - these shouldn't be mapped. or, if anything, only (5). the problem with these is that 00:14:338 - here you decided to opt for placing a break; but later on you decided to overmap triplets... which is very inconsistent i'm not overmapping. 00:17:161 (5,6,1) - These are hihat sounds, please hear it clearer.
   
4. 00:19:808 (4,5) - these should be replaced with a slider, you also did that on 00:12:749 (4) - and 00:15:573 (5) - ehh
   
5. 00:25:014 - this beat is very, very important. make a triplet instead
   same applies to 00:30:661 - and the rest because they are the exact same thing I understand that those blue ticks are important, however it is not sufficient to force people to click them. Triple doesn't emphasise the blue tick either as it mostly stresses the white tick tho.
   
6. 00:25:632 - i am unsure to why there is a break here, but there is no other break in 00:28:455 - 00:32:338 - etc. these give the player of a sense of "is he following vocals, drums, guitar, piano? i'm not quite following this".

then the rest is pretty much okayish,

1. until 00:48:926 (3,4,5,6,7) - (and 01:00:220 (3,4,5,6,7) - too) simply because these 2 ignore the vocals completely, which you have been following throughout the rest of the map. you would usually expect these to be the same as 00:51:044 (7,8,1) - or 00:56:691 (6,7,1) - or 01:02:338 (7,8,1) - , well you get it. there is no need to map the (6)s. this is something personal though, you can ignore this suggestion if you can. both work, but one is simply better than the other one start the spam part with super spam thing will help players recognize their situation better imo.
   
2. 00:54:220 - pretty strong sound here getting ignored. in fact i'm not sure why is 00:54:044 (1) - extended, becuase you are not doing that anywhere else on the map, felt pretty random for the most part
   I replied my thought in Zero__wind's mod
   

   Zero__wind wrote:

   General
   00:54:044 (1) - try 1/2 slider here like what you have at 01:05:338 (1) - , the drum at red tick 00:54:220 - should not be overlooked / 01:05:338 (1) - for this, I avoided the drum at 01:05:955 - to make a jumping pattern there, but 00:54:044 (1) - this, it was extended so as for player not to hear so many 1/2 beat, the next rhythm after those patterns are different in order that I put the distinguishable melody. I think that would help player feel the rhythm better

3. 00:55:455 (1,2) - during 00:54:749 - this section, you change to complete vocal mapping (which is completely fine and i'm glad you did that), but you interpretate one vocal sound with two different objects... which is completely different from every other object during this section who would like to spam 1/2 sliders from 00:54:749 - to 00:56:161 - (about 2 seconds is kinda unhealthy with me lol). It is just for variety and I think it is fine,
   super fine.
   
4. 00:57:661 - you ignore this beat, that's sad. could eprfectly be mapped to be fair I dont think you would like to see this pattern https://puu.sh/vQP8H/361080a616.png .It is just intentional for me to emphasis the finish
   
5. 01:17:161 (4) - tail is more important than the head in terms of rhythm, but this object shows otherwise. a simple 01:16:985 (3,4) - ctrl+g would fix this issue ezpz. yes, same goes to 01:19:985 (4) - oh, yea you are right, adjusted both this and Hard diff.
   
6. 01:20:867 (1,2,3) - these are not 1/4. pretty sure these are either 1/6 or 1/8, but there is no real reason to map 1/4s, not even for simplification I've already known that is not 1/4, not even 1/6 or 1/8. In fact it would have to be supported with another timing point, but I just feel like dont need it. So undermapping was a choice, I tried to follow that non-1/4 sound but pointless. At least I will change it into a 1/4 reverse slider so people would be able to predict them

slider velocity

usually you would think "alright, i can deny this". problem comes to when it's very inconsistent, even in the same section of the song alright, i can deny this (jkjk)
some feel very comfortable, but 10 seconds later, when they are supposed to change again, they just simply don't change at all

here's stuff:

1. 00:22:985 - vs 00:34:279 - vs 00:48:396 - three different sections entirely, but these 3 contain the exact same slider velocity
   i'm fine with the first one being 1.00x, it matches, it fits the song!
   the second one should definitely be slower, though. 00:34:279 - here is when the song starts building up, so its transition should be more naturla as well. you can go back to 1.00x again in 00:39:926 - because the music has already reached its peak before the kiai section
   as for the third, 00:48:396 - 1.10x would be very nice, especially so it doesn't feel like the whole rest of the map as Zero__wind, I dont think using slider velocity is the best way to express "what is the part you are following". I did a lot of different stuffs to make players feel them and it's not slider velocity. In my opinion, 00:34:279 - this part are-just-the-same with the others that I does not even have to slow them. And please explain me why will it be very nice if I accelerate them, "because it is the kiai and it should be different with the rest" is the reason somewhat difficult for me to get it.
   
2. 00:56:867 - sections like this felt really good. you seriously did a great job here; but then you break with your consistency in 01:06:573 - which makes it a bit sad. try making them consistent, they are emphasized in the exact same way let me prove that they are emphasized in the exact different way. The first part had 4 finish, meanwhile the second had only 2, that is.
   That is.
   Actually, you mentioned this in "slider velocity" so I think it would be a slider velocity problem lol. After checking so hard, I think there is no problem in that inconsistent part, seriously. 00:56:867 - this is the climax of the song, I think accelerate them is just right away, after that, this part 01:06:573 - are not the climax anymore, no reason for me to accelerate them. In the other hand, 01:06:573 (1,1) - this this, are just 1/1 sliders and it would be kinda fast if I increase sv in that case >_>. I dont know why you said like they are consistent each other while they obviously aren't

spacing

o boy, here is when things start getting a little bit... complicated. spacing is supposed to give everyone (by this i mean, both mappers/modders and players) the feeling that the song is actually being mapped properly (or well, to a certain extent)
problem here is that it just feels very random and, especially, inconsitent in a lot of different scenarios. patterns that are supposed to be the same, ended up being really different due to how they were placed and how they were spaced

overall emphasis is very screwed, though. you need to work around that. i will avoid saying you'd need to use distance snap, you'd probably hate me cause of that, nobody wants to use that in 2017 heh

1. 00:11:691 - during this whole section spacing is supposed to be, overall, small. it's a calm section, so it should be felt as such; but it actually doesn't feel as such:
   00:12:220 (2,3,4) - spacing here is completely random, there is absolutely no need to space these farther. a pattern being spaced as-is makes 00:12:749 (4,1) - look very underemphasized, and that's something you want to avoid since (1) is very audible and emphasized in the background music!!! they are supported to be a good pattern than a good spacing
   00:14:514 (1,2,3,4,5) - this pattern is more about overall structure, and not about spacing. but if you had to explain why 00:15:396 (4,5) - were different spaced from the previous notes, you probably wouldn't be able to do that aren't they is for vocal? Vocal has higher pitch there => more spacing
   00:16:632 (3,4,5,6,1) - again, something somewhat similar to what i mentioned at the vey beginning. (3,4) share the same distance as (4,5), that leaves 00:17:338 (1) - with no kind of special feeling at all because they are equally spaced it shares the same spacing, but it make sense due to the triplet, it is not about spacing problem because I emphasised it in the other way.
   00:18:044 (3,4) - i would say these were unintentionally misplaced and that you didn't intend to do this pattern It is com ple te ly my intention by put them like that. You just see that 00:18:396 (4,5,1) - is a triangle and 00:18:044 (3) - is inside them (it is not overlapped with anything, so it is gud enough for me)
   so that's basically it for the first section. you probably notice that there a lot of things i mentioned during these 4 points that repeat a lot during said section. that's because i omitted it for the sake of not having to explain the same issue over and over and over again
   I'm not focusing on making a good spacing, but a good flow. A good flow is not always required balance distance. I dont use distance snap, that is why my spacing stuffs are not always good, sorry about that, but it is not a problem because you don't have to feel the spacing while playing.
2. 00:32:338 (5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - pattern overall feels very random, let's say it's awkward. song here gets a little more quiet but that's not being represented into the map. on a side note, (1) and (5) should get more protagonism, more emphasis; as of right now, it feels like everything is emphasized the same way (but as i said, this isn't the case, yada yada!) so you need to get that fixed
   get more attention into (4,5) and decrease the rest, especially for (5,6,7) so when the song starts building up again in 00:33:749 - it feels more special changed the pattern there, it will work better now, imo.
   
3. 00:47:161 (1,2,3) - these felt very underemphasized for no reason. after such a jumpy section, these felt like 3 very quiet piano hits when they are quite the opposite. these felt like 3 very quiet piano hits when they are quite the opposite is the reason for why I represent them like that. I want to make a bit surprise for player who first plays this diff and they should be like "wow I've just clicked 3 very loud guitar hits but they are quite the opposite!
   
4. 00:49:278 (7,8,9) - you already get by now that (8) should be the one being emphasized and not (9). you executed this idea properly in 01:00:572 (7,8,9) - so try doing that instead that is not a problem because players were focusing on clicking 00:49:455 (8,9,1,2,3) - the vocal. I would like leaving it for a better triangle. It is just for flow after all, even though it may not

unfortunately, patterns like the one i have mentioned happened throughout the whole map but in a whole different level... the map is built around inconsistent spacing, with no clear idea of what are you trying to emphasize, which is seriously sad give me a 2017 map which has a real consistent spacing on high diff pls

to mention quite a few examples of what i just said, let me go through some patterns:

1. 00:52:632 (1,2,3,4) - spacing here is pretty consistent (i'm aware that (1,2) is not consistent spacing, but wait). the problem is that, that's only the visual section of the map. the song, on the other hand, makes something completely different
   you know, whenever you want to do these kind of patterns, you gotta make sure that, in fact, the sounds you are mapping (or whatever you are following) are consistent, otherwise it doesn't make sense
   
2. 01:03:926 (1,2,3,4) - this has the same mistake as explained before, all three problems combined
   
3. 01:05:691 (2,3,4) - again, somewhat similar. (3) is supposed to be taken as a very soft hit, but it looks like it's getting a lot more of attention. quiet beats shouldn't get more importance than the very, really loud sounds!! (3) is used to be a lever in order to emphasis the (4). (2,3) has the smaller distance than (3,4), doesn't it?
   
   for those 2 points, it is just too normal with me, take a look at my map, I do that kind of pattern everywhere. It's just fine because I'd like to put a circle nearer after a slider, it would be easier to play than a consistent spacing between all objects.

here comes the part where visuals start getting involved into your mapping as well, decisions where you start questioning yourself whether or not you are hitting a 1/4 or a 1/2 pattern. not even that, you question the mapper if those decisions were intentionally made:

1. 00:22:896 (6,1) - xexxar already mentioned these, so i will leave that for now
2. 00:23:691 (4,5) - looks like 1/4 instead of 1/2 it is just looks like, they will soon realise that is not 1/4 base on the slider tail
3. 01:09:749 (2,1) - looks like a 1/2 pattern instead of 1/1, this is thanks to our lovely visual effects people are used to it is just also "looks like". After clicking the circle, I dont think there will be someone suddenly click it as 1/2 beat tbh

flow

for the biggest part, i didn't have too many problems with flow. map itself feels okayish in that sense, it's simple, it flows! <- just let it end here.
but let me do some notes anyway

1. 00:32:161 (4,5,1,2) - even if you are going to change this (you will, right?) this kind of movement is pretty harsh and it shouldn't be used because it feels forced compared to the rest of the map
   
2. 00:58:985 (1,2,3,4) - this is less about flow and more about visuals, but it... kidna is related. movement here felt quite awkward, especially in 00:59:161 (2,3,4) - . idk, personally it seems like you could have done something much better than that
   but that's just me

as for visuals, they overall need more work. 00:11:691 (1) - this is quite an awkward shape, to be honest. but that's it made it straight


i think you should really put more effort into wondering why you should make the patterns you make, how they'd fit where they are in the music and how enjoyable they'd be for their designated player. the map is just, so much in need of polishing, like i feel you'd need more than this mod to make it reach to its maximum potential
by no means i'm saying this mapset is unrankable, but that there is a long way left to improve in order to make it good enough for the ranked section

i guess that's it?
yeah, that's it!

Yuii- wrote:

I'm going to ignore Zero__wind's reply because it really explains nothing and that should never be done, it's on the mapper's end to explain their point of view; I don't know what is he doing here to begin with, but hey! Let's ignore him.

Yuii- wrote:

That being said, you are allowed to re-bubble this mapset.

Zero__wind wrote:

[Insane]
why's the video gone in this diff? please add if back and remember video offset -200 like other diffs rip me fixed
00:32:691 (1,2,3) - try to carry on the clockwise flow from 00:32:338 (5,6) - like this ? nice idea, but I will lead it down for easier gameplay.
00:55:808 (3,4,5) - polish the blanket here and stack 5 with 3? a stack here would be unhealthy with me tho, but ye polished the pattern and give a better distance between 00:56:514 (5,6) -
01:16:632 (1) - try a soft finish addition here for the cymbal sound? do for all diffs if you agree nice

call me back